The Right Side of the News

Limbaugh is also good on Pelosi's speech yesterday. Didn't we think this supposed withholding of aid by Trump was to force an investigation of Biden's son? So how come now she's saying it was really about benefiting Russia. Ha ha. They don't have anything, they are making it up as they go.Mark Levin last night was good at exposing how Pelosi's understanding of American history is bogus too. No it did not start in 1776, that was actually the result of many years of offenses by Britain that were being protested in America.I think we all need a good solid education in the Constitution too from what I hear. The Democrats are getting it so wrong it is being shredded by their misreading. Or willful misinterpretation, whichever. I don't feel I have a good understqanding of it either. I think we all need a strong presentation, with lots of presentrs and plenty of argument, to teach us 3what we really need to know so we can judge rightly when its being violated. The House Democrats are saying Trump isviolatingit. All the conservatives I listen to, many of them lawyers and Constitutional scholars, are saying it's the House Democrts who are violating it.

No not throw people ihn jailo for being Muslim but stop inviting them into the country, making it clear that Islam is a terrorist organization, educate educate educate, prevent the building of mosques where this murderous ideology is taught and that sort of thing..

it isn't a matter of just reading the Conswtitution since people read it and don't get it right, juswt as they read the Bible and don't get it right. Yoyu have to have some knowledge of the histolrical context that most of us do not have, in fact ALL of us these days don't have except those fe3w 3who have carefully studied it, knowledge of how terms are used for instance. For instance the term "bribery" did not mean then what it is being made to mean now.

yes it is discriminator. Not to discriminate againat an evil ideology is insanity. But note I did not say to jail believers in Islawm juts for believing in it, that is in keeping with what the founders meant. I'm talking about preventing an evil ideology from getting a foothold in the culture and putting us all in danger. I have exactly the same attitude t3woard Marxism and all its offshoots in today's Democratic party, Political correctness and so on. These are alien anti-American ideologies tghat undermine the Constitutionl and Americna culture and put us all in danger of all kinds of tyrannical philosophies, depriving us of all our freedoms in the end.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yeah you want a Marxist misreading of the Constitution of course,whicfh is mostly what we are getting these days anyway. I did not say to exclude any point of view, go back and reqad what I wsaid, but I do want a strong represwentation of the conservative reading because that is 3what nobody ever gets to hear. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The First Amendment does not give freedom to any belief that threatens the wellbeing of the nation or individuals.

Yes, do remember that because despiteyour sarcastic spin thqat is the truth. ISLAM AS AN IDEOLOGY is evil. I've made it clear that there are different relations Muslims have to that ideology but the ideology itself is a murderous evil oppressive tyrannical ideology. CHRISTIQANITY IS ANYTHING BUT so that evil committed in its name is FALSE and a VIOLATION of it. Christianity built the West, it is the basic inspiration for our freedoms. Islam, like Marxism,keeps people in mental and often literal chains. Yes, learn it, it's the truth.

That's just my opinion???Gosh maybe so. I am of the opinion that if an ideology prescribes taking over the entire world to the obedience of its own dictates that's evil. I am of the opinion that if an ideology prescribes treating those who do not accept its tenets should be specially taxed and treated like second or third class citizens, as "dhimmis" in Muslim nations, there they can be run off the sidewalk to make room for a Muslim believer, and I am of the opinion that an ideology that prescribes killing Jews and Christians and anybody else who rejects the tenets of that ideology is evil, yes I am of that opinion. And so should you be.

Not if you personally decide that but of coruse if a corrupt government decides that of course you can do that. It wsould be an evil act, it would be a denial of everything America stands for but of course you can do that.

So some are now saying Saudi Arabia should have the responsibility for taking care of the costs and damage done by their own citizen.

No, it was a specific reference to the danger of a President's being bought/ bribed BY a foreign power to betray the nation. NOT what it is being used to mean today. The concern was not that the President would bribe anyone but that he would be bribed in a way that would betray the nation, as Benedict Arnold had done. Trump is guilty of neither of course. This is apparently understood from writings of the founders at the time and I don't know what that reference is. I think I heard this from Mark Levin and he IS a Constitutional scholar and is able to quote a lot of material about the Constitution by the founders.

OK did she use the word "Putin" then?QAnd I heard the tape of what Pelosi said and Levin answered it directly.

All I heard was various clips from the speech on various programs. I don't want to hear the whole thing. I just wanted to know if she ment5ioned the name "Putin" and sincde you say she didn't that's the end of the subject for me. I must have misrememebered something.

You'd have to describe what you are claiming about Chriswtians and you'd have to quote me supposedly "advocating" for any of the evils I list for Islam. And as usual I have to emphasize that I have made a very clear distinction between Muslims who have different relationships with Islam, and Islam itself which is an evil ideology.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He says the only way we can rectify the effects of this sham impeachment is by impeaching the next Democrat President on the same sham grounds, when the Republicans next control the House. At first it seems like it wouldn't accomplish anything, and many objections immediately come to mind, but as I thought about it I see that he's right. If we let this charade, this travesty of justice, stand as if it's legitimate, we allow more of the same against future Presidents, as if it is a legitimate process. But if we take the bull by the horns and do it intentionally to the next Democrat President, with all the same illegal and unfair proceedings, making it clear at every point that it's to show the illegitimate grounds for the impeachment of Trump, it could very well bring people to their senses and bring to an end what could become a dangerous precedent that would undermine the Constitutional basis of impeachments. I hope this will be taken seriously by Republicans. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.